26  1.7 
14-  a 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/addresstopeopleoOOevan 


DOCUMENT  XIX. 


FOR  THE 

United  States  of  America. 


ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW 
YORK  CONCERNING  THE  SO-CALLED  “ FREE- 
DOM OF  WORSHIP"  BILL,  BEFORE 
THE  LEGISLA  TORE  OF  1885. 


NEW  YORK : 

32.  Bible  House,  Astor  Place. 
1885. 


George  F.  Nesbitt  Cl  Co.,  Printers,  eor.  Pearl  and  Pine  Sts.,  N.  Y. 


DOCUMENT  XIX. 


ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  ST  A TE  OF  NEW 
YORK  CONCERNING  THE  SO-CALLED  “ FREE- 
DOM OF  WORSHIP"  BILL,  BEFORE 
THE  LEGISLATURE  OF  1885. 


NEW  YORK : 

3Z  Bible  House,  Astok  Place. 
1885. 


NEW  YORK: 

GEORGE  F.  NESBITT  & CO.,  PRINTERS, 
Cor.  Pearl  and  Pine  Streets, 


1885. 


£&/.? 

GVI'/ol 


ROOMS  OF 

The  Evangelical  Alliance  for  the 
United  States  of  America. 

New  York  City,  N.  Y.,  July , 1885. 

To  the  Citizens  of  the  State  of  New  York : 

We  bespeak  your  candid,  loyal  and  intelligent  consideration  of  the 
following  statement  of  facts.  We  beg  you  to  look  below  the  surface  of 
things  and  do  your  own  thinking  regardless  of  political  affiliations.  The 
purpose  of  the  movements  hereinafter  described,  is  the  utter  destruction 
of  our  unsectarian  institutions,  including  our  public  school  system,  and 
the  annihilation  of  the  motives  for  private  beneficence. 

For  the  seventh  time  the  Roman  “ Catholic  Union”  of  New  York 
City — a politico-ecclesiastical  order  under  Jesuit  control — has  caused 
to  be  introduced  into  the  Legislature  of  the  State  a bill  for  the  ostensible 
purpose  of  securing  “ freedom  of  worship”  for  the  inmates  of  penal  or 
reformatory  institutions,  supported  in  part  or  in  whole  by  the  State. 
Once,  in  the  course  of  ten  years,  substantially  the  same  bill  passed  both 
houses  of  the  Legislature,  but  met  with  a prompt  and  logical  veto  from 
Gov.  Cornell.  In  his  first  message  to  the  Legislature  Gov.  Hill  said 
that  “ any  proper  enactment  having  for  its  true  purpose  the  enforcement 
of  the  inviolable  right  of  religious  liberty  and  freedom  of  worship  will 
receive  prompt  executive  approval ;”  and  in  harmony  with  this  sentiment 
the  same  familiar  measure  came  to  the  front  on  the  first  day  of  the  Sen- 
ate’s session  this  year. 

The  name  of  the  bill  was  deceptive,  naturally  so  because  of  its  Jesu- 
itical origin.  It  falsely  assumed  that  freedom  of  worship  is  denied  to 
the  inmates  of  the  institutions  to  which  it  refers.  The  bill  was  first 
brought  forward  in  1875  ky  the  “ Catholic  Union,”  because,  as  it  boldly 
asserted,  the  Managers  of  the  House  of  Refuge  for  the  Reformation  of 
Juvenile  Delinquents  (including  Chief-Justice  Daly  and  Mr.  Nathaniel 
Jarvis,  both  Roman  Catholics)  unanimously  refused  to  change  the  un- 
sectarian character  of  the  institution,  and  allow  a priest,  approved  by 
the  Archbishop  of  New  York,  to  act  as  chaplain,  celebrate  mass  every 
Sunday,  have  daily  access  to  the  inmates,  and  have  confessions  in  the 
sacrament  of  penance.  The  demand  also  included  that  “ Sunday-school 
shall  be  held  at  appointed  hours,  at  which  members  of  the  Society  of 
St.  Vincent  de  Paul  shall  be  allowed  to  teach  the  Christian  doctrine  to 
the  Catholic  boys,  and  some  Sisters  of  Charity  to  Catholic  girls.” 

The  founder  of  the  Society  which  controls  the  above-named  order. 


4 


declares  that  “ our  chief  object  is  not  to  assist  the  poor — no,  that  is  for 
us  only  a means.  Our  object  is  to  keep  them  steadfast  in  the  Catholic 
faith,  and  to  propagate  it  among  others  by  means  of  charity.” 

The  highest  authorities  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  deny  that  the 
right  of  freedom  of  worship  can  exist ; nevertheless  to  deceive  the  people 
of  a republican  State  by  appealing  to  their  sense  of  fairness,  the  Jesuits 
now  come  to  the  front  as  the  pretended  champions  of  freedom  of  wor- 
ship. This  attitude,  though  specious,  will  not  deceive  any  but  thought- 
less citizens  and  innocent  politicians.  They  are  so  zealous  for  freedom  of 
worship  that  they  have  threatened  “ the  political  damnation  of  any  man  or 
party”  that  should  refuse  to  vote  for  this  bill,  and  boast  that,  “ we  have 
already  marred  the  political  future  of  more  than  one  bigot,  and  we  advise 
all  others  to  note  the  fact.”  This  is  the  same  style  of  argument  that 
these  same  guardians  of  the  people’s  rights  employed  in  the  public-school 
controversy,  when  they  declared  that  they  would  soon  be  strong  enough 
to  “ force  the  State  Legislature  to  give  them  their  proportion  of  the  pub- 
lic schools  supported  at  the  public  expense.” 

The  Roman  Catholic  Church  now  has  lavish  support  from  the 
treasury  of  the  city  of  New  York  for  its  profitable  Protectory,  its  Found- 
ling Asylum,  and  various  schools,  and  this  bill  seeks  to  bring  wholly  or 
partially  under  control  of  the  priesthood  the  reformatories  of  the  State. 

In  1885  there  is  appropriated  on  State  grants,  out  of  the  New  York 
City  treasury,  and  from  the  Excise  Fund,  about  $1,600,000.  Of  this 
amount  about  $224,000  goes  to  non-sectarian  institutions  ; about  $92,000 
to  Hebrew  institutions  ; about  $3 56,000  to  Protestant  institutions ; about 
$933,000  to  Roman  Catholic  institutions. 

Is  this  a just  distribution  of  funds,  based  upon  the  proportion  which 
each  of  these  various  bodies  contributes  by  taxation  to  the  public 
treasury  ? 

No  State  in  this  republican  nation  intrusts  the  training  of  its  infant 
wards  to  any  sect  or  Church,  with  their  ‘‘  services,  rules,  and  discipline ;” 
and  New  York  in  this  era  of  civilization  will  certainly  not  take  the  initi- 
ative in  pronouncing  the  banns  of  the  “ union  of  Church  and  State,”  as 
these  measures  covertly  propose.  It  would  be  a dangerous  marriage 
that  not  even  law  could  make  sacred.  We  are  learning  in  this  country 
the  lesson,  long  since  learned  in  the  Old  World,  to  distinguish  between 
Jesuitism  and  general  Roman  Catholicism.  We  wage  no  war  on  the 
equal  rights  of  Roman  Catholics  with  all  other  Denominations  to  free- 
dom of  worship  and  religious  liberty,  nor  deny  their  rights,  but  the 
rather  would  vigorously  defend  those  rights,  under  the  State  Constitu- 
tion, to  the  “free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and 


5 


worship.”  But  we  will  war  against  any  attempt  to  invade  with  sec- 
tarian teaching  the  absolutely  unsectarian  beneficiary  institutions  of  the 
State,  whether  they  be  the  public  schools  or  the  penal  and  reformatory 
institutions. 

All  such  bills  ought  to  be  defeated  : 

Because  they  are  deceptive  in  their  purpose,  and  would  be  destruc- 
tive of  the  interests  they  pretend  to  desire  to  promote  in  their  enforcement. 

Because  they  would  destroy  the  character  and  overthrow  the  work  of 
one  of  the  oldest  and  most  useful  unsectarian  institutions  under  the  care 
of  the  State — the  House  of  Refuge — by  rendering  discipline  and  moral 
instruction  impossible  because  of  the  admission  of  sectarian  religious 
teachers  not  subject  to  the  control  of  the  Managers. 

Because  they  attempt  to  accomplish  by  a simple  enactment  a change 
in  State  policy  of  so  fundamental  a character  that  it  amounts  to  a con- 
stitutional amendment. 

Because  it  is  neither  just  nor  proper  for  the  State,  in  any  case,  to 
assign  children  to  religious  classes,  and  it  is  clearly  impossible  to  classify 
into  sects  juvenile  criminals  or  delinquents,  or  the  children  of  criminal 
or  neglectful  parents. 

Because  no  other  Denomination  than  the  Roman  Catholic  asks  the 
State  for  the  legal  privilege  of  proselyting. 

Because,  if  their  provisions  should  be  literally  carried  out,  it  would 
open  for  the  admission  of  Jesuits  Protestant  asylums  supported  and 
controlled  by  private  beneficence,  and  threaten  every  private  charitable 
institution  with  a similar  outrage. 

Because  they  are  not  designed  to  secure  freedom  of  worship,  but  to 
suppress  it. 

Such  bills  are  favored  by  the  Jesuits  and  their  adherents  alone,  and 
assented  to  by  other  Roman  Catholics  who  do  not  appreciate  their 
origin  nor  understand  their  import.* 

The  provisions  of  the  Bill  as  last  revised,  threaten  to  expose  chari- 
table institutions  generally  to  the  intrusion  of  clerical  members  of  the 
same  faith  as  that  which  on  one  pretense  or  another  might  be  attributed 
to  their  juvenile  inmates,  and  in  one  institution  alluded  to  by  the  coun- 
sel of  the  House  of  Refuge,  Mr.  Robinson,  where  this  thing  of  arbitrary 
religious  classification  of  minors  had  been  introduced  without  law,  when 
pretenses  failed  they  classified  the  children  by  alternate  numbers ; so 
that  the  great  question  of  their  life,  whether  they  should  be  trained  as 
Roman  Jesuits  or  as  American  citizens,  was  made  to  depend  as  purely 
upon  chance  as  if  each  one’s  number,  as  they  stood,  happened  to  be  odd 
or  even.  This  feature  of  the  Bill  giving  power  to  intrude  and  inter- 


6 


meddle,  called  forth  an  earnest  protest  from  the  managers  of  the  great 
Christian  and  Hebrew  charities  of  the  City  of  New  York,  who  assem- 
bled for  its  consideration  at  St.  Luke’s  Hospital,  founded  by  that 
Christian  philanthropist.  Dr.  William  Augustus  Muhlenburg,  whose 
large  charity  had  embraced  the  sick  of  all  creeds,  with  no  thought  of  so 
disastrous  a result  to  the  institution.  Careful  reflection  resulting  in  a 
conviction  of  the  danger  immediately  threatened  by  the  Bill,  a far-sighted 
appreciation  of  its  aim  and  tendency,  of  its  menace  to  the  supremacy 
of  the  civil  power,  and  to  the  integrity  of  American  institutions,  has 
led  to  the  organization  of  a Central  Committee  under  the  management 
of  influential  gentlemen  “ for  the  protection  and  securing  of  the  com- 
plete separation  of  Church  and  State.” 

While  the  views  and  methods  of  this  central  association  may  differ 
on  some  points  from  those  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  there  is  harmony 
in  the  aim  and  object  of  the  two  representative  bodies,  in  resisting  this 
assault  upon  the  Freedom  of  Worship  ordained  by  the  Constitution. 

And  it  is  hoped  that  the  friends  of  this  Alliance  will  heartily  co- 
operate with  the  citizens  engaged  in  that  movement,  a chief  object  of 
which  will  be  to  learn  the  true  sentiments,  on  the  subject,  of  candidates 
for  the  State  Legislature. 

The  project  of  the  Bill  is  thus  opposed  by  the  boards  of  management 
of  the  institutions  liable  to  be  affected  by  their  provisions ; by  the  Evan- 
gelical Alliance  of  the  United  States,  composed  of  members  of  the 
various  Christian  Churches  in  the  Republic ; by  almost  the  entire 
Protestant,  and  Jewish,  and  non-sectarian  community;  and  by  a large 
number  of  thoughtful  Roman  Catholics  who  do  not  forget  that  at  the 
same  time  they  are  American  citizens. 

The  contest  against  this  last  unjust  assault  upon  our  civil  and  religious 
liberties  has  been  a violent  and  critical  one,  as  you  will  discern  from  the 
following  quotations  from  the  Report  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee appointed  by  the  United  States  Evangelical  Alliance  to  oppose 
the  so-called  Freedom  of  Worship  Bill  before  the  last  Legislature. 

“ On  January  6,  1885,  immediately  after  the  assembling  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  this  State,  the  so-called  Freedom  of  Worship  Bill  was  intro- 
duced in  the  Senate  by  Senators  Gibbs  and  Murphy,  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Cities,  consisting  of  the  following  Senators  : Gibbs, 
Daggett,  McCarthy,  Lansing,  Daly,  Cullen  and  Thatcher. 

The  following  is  the  text  of  the  original  bill : 

An  Act  to  secure  to  the  inmates  of  institutions  for  the  care  of  the  poor. 

Freedom  of  Worship. 

Section  i.  The  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession 


1 


and  worship,  without  discrimination  or  preference,  shall  be  allowed  to 
all  persons  in  the  next  section  of  this  Act  mentioned. 

Sec.  2.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  managers  of  every  house  of  refuge 
or  society  for  the  reformation  of  juvenile  delinquents,  or  protectory,  and 
of  every  institution  for  the  support  of  the  poor  receiving  public  aid, 
except  asylums  for  the  insane,  to  permit,  at  all  reasonable  hours,  the 
inmates  thereof  to  be  visited  by  clergymen  of  the  denomination  to  which 
they,  or  if  infants,  their  parents  or  guardians  belong,  and  the  religious 
services  of  such  denomination  to  be  had  according  to  its  rules  and  dis- 
cipline, and  to  afford  all  proper  facilities  for  such  visits  and  services,  but 
without  expense  to  the  managers  thereof,  and  subject  to  such  reasonable 
regulations  as  they  shall  prescribe. 

Sec.  3.  This  Act  shall  apply  to  all  such  institutions  as  care  for  persons 
who  would  otherwise  become  a charge  upon  their  respective  counties, 
as  blind,  foundlings,  and  orphans,  and  also  to  the  institutions  to  which 
prostitutes  or  fallen  women,  or  juvenile  delinquents  may  be  committed, 
or  in  which  they  may  be  cared  for. 

Sec.  4.  This  Act  shall  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  July,  1885. 

Your  Committee  immediately  prepared  a protest  of  twenty-six  pages 
in  pamphlet,  and  mailed  it  to  every  member  of  the  Legislature,  and  to 
all  the  Evangelical  clergymen  of  the  State,  accompanied  by  a form  of 
remonstrance  ; and  a postal  card  form  for  returns,  to  be  mailed  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Alliance. 

These  postal  card  reports  showed  that  some  scores  of  thousands  of 
signatures  of  citizens  had  been  secured  and  forwarded  to  Senators  and 
Assemblymen  from  all  parts  of  the  State.  The  Chairman  of  your  Com- 
mittee ascertained  that  these  remonstrances  were  being  withheld  by- 
certain  members  of  the  Legislature.  He  accordingly  went  to  Albany, 
and  compared  the  returns  in  his  possession  with  the  records  of  the  Leg- 
islature, and  notified  delinquent  representatives  q f the  people  of  their 
duty  to  respect  the  sacred  right  of  petition,  and  the  remonstrances  were 
then  and  thereafter  promptly  presented. 

The  Bill  in  the  Senate  was  amended  in  several  particulars,  but  every 
amendment  left  untouched  the  offensive  and  unjust  features.  Senators, 
whom  we  ought  to  have  been  able  to  depend  upon  for  support  in  our 
righteous  cause,  were  so  thoroughly  committed  politically  to  the  Jesuit 
power,  that  no  argument  could  avail,  and  the  Bill  passed  the  Senate  in 
the  following  form,  and  was  sent  over  to  the  Assembly,  and  there  sub- 
stituted for  Mr.  Husted’s  bill  (which  had  been  introduced  early  in  the 
session),  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Affairs  of  Cities  ; 


8 


An  Act  to  provide  for  the  better  security  of  the  freedom  of  religious 
worship  in  certain  institutions. 

The  People  of  the  State  of  New  York,  represented  in  Senate  and 
Assembly,  do  enact  as  follows  : 

Section  l.  All  persons,  including  those  who  may  have  been,  or  may 
hereafter  be,  committed  or  taken  charge  of  by  any  of  the  institutions 
mentioned  in  this  Act  are  hereby  declared  to  be,  and  are,  entitled  to 
the  free  exercise  and  enjoyment  of  religious  profession  and  worship 
without  discrimination  or  preference. 

Sec.  2.  This  Act  shall  be  deemed  to  apply  to  every  incorporated 
or  unincorporated  society  for  the  reformation  of  the  inmates  of  houses 
of  refuge,  protectories,  or  other  reformatary  or  penal  institutions  contin- 
uing to  receive  for  its  use  either  public  moneys  or  a per  capita  sum  from 
any  municipality  for  the  support  of  the  inmates. 

Sec.  3.  The  rules  and  regulations  established  for  the  government  of 
the  institutions  mentioned  in  this  Act  shall  recognize  the  right  of  the 
inmates  to  the  free  exercise  of  their  religious  belief,  and  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  their  consciences,  in  accordance  with  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  and  shall  allow  and  provide  for  holding 
religious  instruction  and  for  private  ministration  to  the  inmates  in  such 
manner  as  may  best  carry  into  effect  the  spirit  and  intent  of  this  Act, 
and  be  consistent  with  the  proper  discipline  and  management  of  the  in- 
stitution ; but  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be  construed  to  authorize 
any  additional  expenditure  on  the  part  of  the  State;  and  the  inmates  of 
such  institutions  shall  be  allowed  spiritual  advice  and  spiritual  adminis- 
tration from  some  recognized  clergyman  of  the  denomination  or  church 
which  said  inmates  may  respectively  prefer,  or  to  which  they  may  have 
belonged  prior  to  their  being  confined  in  such  institutions  ; such  advice 
and  ministration  to  be  given  within  the  buildings  where  the  inmates  are 
required  by  law  to  be  confined,  in  such  manner  and  at  such  hour  as  will 
be  in  harmony,  as  aforesaid,  with  the  discipline  of  the  institution,  and 
secure  to  such  inmates  the  free  exercise  of  their  religious  beliefs  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  of  this  Act. 

Sec.  4.  It  shall  not  be  lawful  to  compel  any  of  such  inmates  to  attend 
any  religious  exercise  not  conducted  by  a clergyman  of  the  denomination 
to  which  such  inmates  may  belong,  or  may  have  belonged  at  the  time  of 
their  reception ; and  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  religion,  the  rights  of 
conscience  of  such  inmates,  and  the  free  exercise  thereof,  shall  be  care- 
fully respected. 


9 


Sec.  5.  The  wilful  violation  of  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  Act  shall 
be  deemed  a misdemeanor. 

Sec.  6.  This  Act  shall  take  effect  immediately. 

The  Bill  passed  the  Senate  by  the  following  vote  .* 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Campbell , Cullen,  Daly , Davidson,  Fassett,  Gibbs, 
Jacobs , Kiernan , Lansing,  McCarthy,  Murphy,  Nelson , Ncwbold, 
Otis,  Plunkitt , Thacker , Titus  and  Van  Schaick — 18. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were. . 

Messrs.  Comstock,  Daggett,  Ellsworth,  Esty,  Gilbert, 
Low,  Robb,  Robinson,  Thomas  and  Vedder — 10. 


Affirmative:  Democrats 12 

“ Republicans 6 

Total . . . , 18 

Negative:  Democrats 1 

Republicans 9 

Total 10 


Present  and  not  voting  : — Messrs.  Baker  and  Bowen. 

Absent : — Messrs.  Arkell  and  Coggeshall. 

Governor  Hill  having  in  his  inaugural  message  promised  in  advance 
to  sign  a bill  of  this  character,  we  realized  that  the  pivotal  battle  must 
be  fought  in  the  Assembly. 

We  therefore  immediately  commenced  the  personal  canvass  of  the 
Assembly.  The  specious  name  of  the  Bill  seemed  to  deceive  the  aver- 
age Assemblyman,  and  the  result  of  the  first  canvass  indicated  that 
if  the  Bill  should  come  to  a vote,  it  would  pass  by  an  overwhelming 
majority.  The  limits  of  this  report  will  not  permit  any  adequate  state- 
ment of  the  amount  of  personal  argument  and  other  legitimate  pressure 
brought  to  bear  upon  the  individual  members  of  the  Assembly,  to  induce 
them  to  act  and  vote  intelligently  upon  this  question.  We  were  con- 
fronted by  a well-disciplined  Roman  legion  under  Jesuit  leadership. 
The  representatives  of  the  “ Catholic  Union,”  headed  by  their  Presi- 
dent and  a force  of  lawyers,  priests  and  laymen,  for  weeks  at  a time  hung 
about  the  Assembly,  whispering  in  the  ears  of  members,  and  employing 
a great  variety  of  arguments,  the  tabulating  and  footing  up  of  which 
would  undoubtedly  require  figures  as  well  as  letters.  Such  was  the 

* Republicans  in  small  capitals  ; Democrats  in  italics. 


10 


brazen  influence  of  these  men,  that  some  of  our  friends  whom  we  supposed 
to  be  tried  and  true  among  the  Assemblymen,  came  to  be  greatly  em- 
barrassed lest  they  should  be  seen  by  their  new  Jesuit  allies  conversing 
with  a representative  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance.  But  we  persisted  in 
embarrassing  them,  and  trust  that  the  culmination  of  this  embarrassment 
will  occur  when  the  ballots  for  members  of  the  Legislature  are  counted 
the  coming  Fall.  The  Committee  on  the  Affairs  of  Cities  consisted  of 
the  following  named  gentlemen : 


Mr.  Barnum,  of  New  York, 

Mr.  Hendricks,  of  Onondaga, 
Mr.  Taylor,  of  Kings, 

Mr.  Williams,  of  Chautauqua, 
Mr.  Myers,  of  Kings, 

Mr.  Shea, 


Mr.  Hawkins,  of  Erie, 

Mr.  Demers,  of  Rerinselaer, 
Mr.  Windolph,  of  New  York, 
Mr.  Haggerty,  of  New  York, 
Mr.  McCann,  of  Kings, 
of  New  York. 


Messrs.  Barnum,  Williams,  Meyers,  Hawkins  and  Windolph,  were 
neither  ashamed  nor  afraid  to  be  counted  right  in  all  matters  pertaining 
to  this  Bill,  either  in  Committee  or  in  Assembly. 

The  first  hearing  before  this  Committee,  for  a single  hour,  was  had 
on  April  14th.  The  torrid  friends  of  the  Bill  in  the  Committee  at- 
tempted to  choke  off  further  hearing.  But  asking  no  privileges  and  de- 
manding our  rights,  we  succeded  in  securing  another  hearing  on  Tuesday 
evening,  April  21st.  The  hearing  was  had  in  the  Assembly  Chamber, 
and  it  is  believed  that  a majority  of  the  members  of  the  Assembly  were 
present,  as  well  as  a large  outside  constituency  of  both  the  friends  and 
opponents  of  the  Bill.  Your  Committee  was  represented  by  its  Chair- 
man, who  was  also  permitted  to  represent  the  Committee  of  the  United 
Charities  of  this  city,  who  were  present  at  the  hearing  in  the  persons  of 
a goodly  delegation  from  their  number. 

On  April  24th  the  Bill  was  reported  for  the  consideration  of  the 
House  without  recommendation,  and  took  its  regular  order  on  the  calen- 
dar. But  being  so  far  down,  it  could  not  be  reached  in  its  regular  order 
during  the  session  of  the  Legislature.  And  to  take  it  out  of  its  order 
would  require  a two-thirds  vote. 

By  an  unholy  combination  with  the  friends  of  another  bill,  the  measure 
was  made  the  special  order  for  Wednesday,  April  29th. 

On  the  day  set  for  its  consideration  we  placed  on  the  desk  of  each 
Assemblyman  a pamphlet  edition  of  the  speech  of  your  Chairman  de- 
livered before  the  Committee  on  Cities,  and  the  action  of  the  Committee 
representing  the  charities  of  this  City.  We  also  placed  in  the  hands  of 
our  friends  in  the  Assembly,  a form  of  a Constitutional  Amendment  to 


11 


be  proposed  as  a substitute  for  the  Bill,  in  case  it  should  reach  the  stages 
of  debate  and  vote.  We  also  issued  a circular  to  the  Evangelical  cler- 
gymen of  the  State,  stating  the  facts  concerning  the  nature  and  position 
of  the  Bill,  and  closed  the  address  in  the  Circular  with  the  following  : 

“ Whether  this  bill  passes  or  is  defeated,  will  you  not  on  Sunday , 
May  3,  1885,  preach  or  speak  on  the  aggressions  of  Jesuitical  Roman- 
ism upon  Civil  and  Religious  liberty  and  its  efforts  to  destroy  our  un- 
sectarian institutions  ? Let  every  evangelical  pulpit  in  the  State  on 
May  3,  1885,  strike  a blow  against  the  union  of  Church  and  State” 

We  also  secured  through  the  Associated  Press  the  publication  of  the 
substance  of  the  above  appeal  in  the  entire  newspaper  press  of  the 
State.  The  returns  from  this  appeal  show  that  it  was  heeded  by  a 
majority  of  the  evangelical  pulpits  in  the  State. 

When  the  Bill  was  called  up,  on  the  29th,  the  opponents  of  the  Bill 
demanded  the  enforcement  of  the  following  ninth  joint  rule  : 

“ No  bill  which  shall  have  passed  one  House  shall  have  its  final 
reading  in  the  other  in  less  than  two  days  thereafter,  without  the  con- 
sent of  two-thirds  of  the  members  thereof  present ; and  whenever  ten 
or  more  bills  shall  be  in  readiness  for  final  reading  in  either  House,  such 
House  shall  forthwith  proceed  to  the  final  reading  ” of  such  bills,  under 
the  order  of  “ third  reading  of  bills,  and  continue  the  same  from  day  to 
day,  until  all  such  bills  then  in  readiness  for  final  reading  shall  have  been 
read,  unless  this  order  of  business  shall,  by  the  vote  of  two-thirds  of  the 
members  present,  be  suspended  or  laid  on  the  table.  All  such  bills  shall 
have  their  last  reading  in  each  House  in  the  order  in  which  the  same 
shall  have  been  ordered  to  a final  reading  in  such  House,  unless  the  bill 
to  be  read  be  laid  on  the  table.  In  all  cases  where  a bill  shall  be  so 
ordered  to  lie  on  the  table,  it  shall  retain  its  place  in  the  order  of  the 
final  reading  of  bills,  but  shall  not  be  called  up  for  consideration  unless 
by  a vote  of  a majority  of  the  mejnbers  present.” 

The  friends  of  the  Bill  claimed  that  the  special  order  did  not  permit 
the  enforcement  of  this  rule.  The  Speaker  ruled  justly  in  our  favor. 
Thus  a two-thirds  vote  was  again  necessary,  in  order  to  bring  the  bill 
where  it  could  be  considered.  On  the  motion  to  lay  all  orders  of  busi- 
ness on  the  table,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  up  the  special  order,  the  vote 
stood  as  follows  : * 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Arnold,  Brennan , Byrne , Cantor , Coffey , Connelly , Church , Clark , 
W.  B.f  Cutler , Decker , Demers,  Driess , Eiseman , Ely , Farrell , Felter , 
Finnt  Gerety , Giese,  Greene , Hagan , Haggerty ^ H.,  Haggerty,  J.y 


* Republicans  in  small  capitals  ; Democrats  in  italics. 


12 


Hardenburg , Hardin , Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Hopkins,  Horne , 
Howe,  W.,  Husted,  Ives,  Jackson , Johnson , Kenny,  Kunzenman, 
Lindsay , Lodewick,  McCann,  McClelland,  McGoldrick,  Murray,  Nagle, 
Niles , Oliver,  O’Neil,  Osborne,  Reilly,  Roche , Roesch,  Rosenthal,  Shea, 
Sherman , Smith,  C.,  Snyder,  Steber,  Taylor,  Wajer — 58. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Andrews,  Bailey,  Baker,  A.  H.,  Baker,  C.  D.,  Baker,  C.  K., 
Barager,  Barnes,  Barnum,  Bartley,  Berry,  Briggs,  Budlong, 
Burnham,  Carlisle,  Cartwright,  Cole,  Curtis,  Dibble,  Far- 
num,  Garbutt,  Grippen,  Haskell,  Hawkins,  S.  S.,  Hawkins, 
W.  M.,  Heath,  Hogeboom,  Horton,  Hotaling,  Howe,  H.  C., 
Hubbell,  Kilby,  Kruse,  Livingston,  Lowing,  McEwen,  Meyers, 
Nash,  Olin,  Owens,  Priddy,  Raines,  Rockefeller,  Scott,  G., 
Scott,  K.  M.,  Seeber,  Shoemaker,  Smith,  C.  E.,  Smith,  T.  A., 
Storm,  Sweet,  Tappan,  Tynan,  Van  Allen,  Van  Buskirk, 
Whitmore,  Williams,  Windolph,  Speaker — 58. 


Affirmative  : Democrats 46 

“ Republicans 12 

Total 58 

Negative:  Democrats 2 

“ Republicans 56 

Total 58 


There  were  absent,  or  did  not  vote,  the  following  Republicans : — 
H.  R.  Clark,  Liddle,  Palmer,  Tuck  and  Van  Deveer  ; and  the  follow- 
ing Democrats: — Earl,  Gould,  Hooley,  O’Hara,  Sheehan,  Tumilty  and 
Whiteman. 

People  generally  thought  that  this  was  the  death  of  the  Bill,  and  were 
resting  in  false  security.  Those  of  us  who  have  watched  the  progress 
of  this  contest,  and  taken  part  in  it,  discovered  that  the  portion  of  the 
press  controlled  by  the  Jesuits,  with  great  unanimity  declared  the  Bill 
to  be  dead,  and  we  suspected  that  the  object  of  this  apparently  meek 
and  unanimous  submission  was  to  throw  us  off  our  guard  while  they 
continued  to  wage  the  battle.  Our  suspicions  were  well  grounded. 
Our  tried  friends  in  the  Assembly,  and  our  employed  private  represent- 
atives at  Albany,  notified  your  Chairman  by  numerous  letters  and  tele- 
grams of  what  they  believed  to  be  a new  and  imminent  peril,  and  we 
went  to  the  seat  of  war  again,  to  remain  until  the  close  of  the  contest. 


18 


When  the  Assemblymen  returned  to  their  homes  to  spend  the  Sunday, 
May  10th,  many  of  them  were  visited  by  priests  and  politicians,  who 
sought  by  intimidations,  and  pleadings,  and  pledges,  to  secure  their 
votes  to  either  bring  the  bill  forward,  or  to  aid  in  its  passage. 

A new  combination  was  formed,  and  another  effort  made  to  advance 
the  bill  on  Wednesday,  May  13th,  with  the  following  results:  * 

Those  who  voted  in  the  affirmative  were — 

Messrs.  Arnold,  C.  D.  Baker,  Brennan,  Burnham , Byrne,  Cantor , 
Coffey,  Connelly , Church,  Cutler , Demers,  Driess , Earl , Eiseman,  Ely, 
Farrell,  Eelter,  Finn}  Gerety,  Giese,  Hagan,  Henry  Haggerty,  James 
Haggerty,  Hardenburg , Harding,  Hasbrouck,  Hendricks,  Hooley, 
Hopkins,  Horton,  Horne,  Walter  How,  Hubbell,  Husted,  Ives, 
Jackson,  Johnson,  Kenny,  Kunzenman , Liddle,  Lindsay , Living- 
ston, Lodezvick , McCann,  McGoldrick , Murray , Nagle,  Niles,  Oliver, 
O’Neill,  Osborne,  Reilly,  Roche , Roesch,  Rosenthal,  Shea,  Sheehan, 
Sherman,  Charles  Smith,  Snyder,  Steber,  Taylor,  Tumilty, 
Van  Duser,  Wafer,  Whiteman — 66. 

Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were — 

Messrs.  Andrews,  Bailey,  C K.  Baker,  Barager,  Barnes,  Bar- 
num,  Bartley,  Berry,  Briggs,  Budlong,  Carlisle,  Cartwright, 
Cole,  Curtis,  Decker,  Dibble,  Farnum,  Garbutt,  Grippen, 
Haskell,  S.  S.  Hawkins,  Wm.  M.  Hawkins,  Hotaling,  H.  C. 
Howe,  Kilby,  Kruse,  Lowing,  McEwen,  Myers,  Olin,  Owens, 
Palmer,  Priddy,  Rockefeller,  George  Scott,  Kidder,  M. 
Scott,  Seeber,  Shoemaker,  Clark  E.  Smith,  Thomas  A.  Smith, 
Sweet,  Tappan,  Tuck,  Tynan,  Van  Allen,  Van  Buskirk, 
Whitmore,  Williams,  Windolph — 49. 


Affirmative  : Democrats 48 

Republicans 18 

Total 66 

Negative:  Democrats 2 

4<  Republicans 47 

Total 49 


* Republicans  in  small  capitals;  Democrats  in  italics. 


14 


There  were  absent,  or  not  voting,  the  following  Republicans : A.  H. 
Baker,  H.  R.  Clark,  Heath,  Hogeboom,  Nash  and  Raines;  and  the 
following  Democrats  ; Gould,  Green,  and  McClelland. 

It  is  claimed  that  some  of  the  Assemblymen  who  voted  to  bring  the 
Bill  forward  out  of  its  regular  order,  would  have  voted  against  the  Bill 
when  it  was  put  on  its  passage.  This  may  be  so,  but  the  opponents  of 
the  Bill  thought  the  interests  at  stake  too  great  to  be  imperilled  by 
questionable  combinations  to  bring  it  to  the  front,  especially  during  the 
exciting,  and  sometimes  apparently  irresponsible,  days  of  the  close  of 
the  session.  And  unless  the  promoters  of  the  Bill  either  miscalculated 
or  misrepresented,  there  were  times  when  they  could  have  commanded, 
under  pressure  of  intimidation,  the  requisite  sixty-five  votes.  Here  is 
what  the  last  issue  of  The  Catholic  Review  (May  23,  1885)  says  : # 

“ ‘The  cowardly  Assembly  ’ of  New  York,  as  it  was  well  designated 
by  one  of  its  members  last  week,  adjourned  without  daring  to  meet  the 
issue  on  the  Freedom  of  Worship  Bill.  The  Catholic  Review  believes 
that  there  were  more  than  enough  members  willing  to  vote  for  it,  if  it 
could  be  brought  to  a vote,  but  parliamentary  law  requiring  a two- 
thirds  vote  to  advance  it  from  its  low  place  in  the  calendar,  it  was 
smothered.  Freedom  of  Worship  crushed  to  earth  will  not  stay  there, 
which,  perhaps,  is  more  than  can  be  said  of  bigots  who  fell  upon  it. 
Although  retarded,  the  measure  is  to-day  ten  years  nearer  passing  than 
it  was  last  year,  and  the  educating  influence  the  agitation  has  had  on 
torpid  Catholics  and  misinformed  Protestants  is  almost  worth  another 
year’s  delay.  Catholics  need  to  be  awakened  and  honest  Protestants 
enlightened.  We  believe  our  demand  for  justice  will  do  this  double  ser- 
vice. There  may  be  delay,  but  there  can  be  but  one  ending  to  this 
struggle.” 

Thursday,  May  14th,  was  a great  and  pivotal  day  in  the  controversy. 
On  Wednesday  evening  a strong  and  boastful  combination  was  formed 
between  the  friends  of  the  Freedom  of  Worship  Bill  and  the  friends  of 
other  bills  (bills  in  which  a powerful  and  moneyed  lobby  was  interested) 
to  bring  them  forward.  We  discovered  the  combination,  which  even 
threatened  to  obstruct  all  legislation  unless  the  Bill  was  brought  forward, 
and  during  the  morning  and  the  afternoon  of  Thursday,  the  Speaker, 
Mr.  Erwin,  all  honor  to  his  name  and  courage,  held  the  House  steadily 
to  its  legitimate  business — the  third  reading  of  bills. 

Finding  that  an  evening  session  was  inevitable,  and  that  it  might 
extend  through  the  night,  with  great  peril  as  to  the  result,  we  succeeded 
in  securing  the  passage  of  a resolution,  that  confined  the  business  of  the 


15 


evening  session  to  the  third  reading  of  bills  on  the  calendar,  and  the 
reception  of  messages  from  the  Senate.  The  session  extended  until 
midnight;  various  desperate  efforts  were  made  by  the  Jesuit  represen- 
tatives to  pet  recognition  from  the  Speaker  to  bring  up  the  Bill  in  con- 
nection with  others,  but  he  held  them  steadily  to  the  transaction  of  the 
business  required  by  the  resolution  fixing  the  session. 

The  final  session  of  three  hours  on  Friday,  May  15  th,  was  so  crowded 
with  the  necessary  business  immediately  preceding  adjournment,  that 
with  a just  and  firm  presiding  officer,  and  vigilant  friends  upon  the  floor, 
no  successful  effort  could  be  made  to  bring  forward  the  Bill,  despite  the 
fact  that  it  only  required,  on  the  final  day  of  the  session,  a majority  vote 
to  take  it  out  of  its  order. 

The  Legislature  of  1885  is  dead,  and  so  is  the  infamous  so-called 
Freedom  of  Worship  Bill.  And  one  more  effort  of  Jesuitism  to  destroy 
our  unsectarian  institutions  is  thwarted.  But  we  would  express  the  con- 
viction, in  closing  this  report,  that  the  Protestantism  and  the  thoughtful 
citizenship  of  the  State  of  New  York  will  deserve  to  be  brought  into 
subjection  to  the  Papal  power,  if  they  shall  supinely  wait  until  this  battle 
is  again  upon  us,  while  the  sleepless  enemies  of  civil  and  religious  liberty 
carry  on  a continuous  and  aggressive  warfare. 

We  stand  pledged  before  the  people  of  the  State  to  move  for  a Con- 
stitutional Amendment,  that  shall  stop  this  constant  trifling  with  the 
unsectarian  institutions  of  the  State,  and  take  the  question  out  of  the 
Legislature  and  out  of  politics.  Publia  sentiment  is  now  aroused  and 
has  rallied  grandly  to  our  support.  Shall  we  go  on  from  this  vantage 
ground,  or  shall  we  continue  to  fight  this  battle  at  disadvantage  and 
with  raw  troops  i” 

We  ask  all  loyal  citizens  to  aid  in  this  movement  for  the  eternal  sepa- 
ration of  Church  and  State,  regardless  of  party  affiliations.  This  is  a 
good  year  for  thoughtful  men  to  vote  for  members  of  the  Legislature 
upon  conviction  and  not  upon  party  prejudice.  The  principle  we  pre- 
sent for  your  consideration  is  the  chief  one  now  demanding  the  con- 
scientious consideration  of  high-minded  citizens  of  the  State. 

While  we  ask  your  active  co-operation  in  sending  men  to  the  ensuing 
Legislature  who  will  vote  against  all  deceptive  so-called  Freedom  of 
Worship  Bills  in  the  immediate  future,  we  ask  you  also  to  promote  the 
advancement  of  a Constitutional  Amendment,  that  will  forever  put  an 
end  to  this  provoking  and  uncalled  for  controversy.  But  a Constitu- 
tional Amendment  is  a matter  requiring  at  least  three  years  work,  before 


18 


it  can  be  incorporated  in  the  original  law  of  the  State,  and  meantime  we 
ask  the  exercise  of  your  vigilance  against  measures  that  would  secure 
unjust  legislation  before  the  desired  Amendment  can  be  secured. 

Already  the  Superintendent  of  Prisons,  without  warrant  of  law,  has 
granted  privileges  that  give  sectarianism  a hold  in  the  prisons  of  the 
State. 

We  appeal  to  you,  the  sovereigns,  to  make  your  representatives  under- 
stand that  they  are  servants,  not  masters. 

Committee  of  the  Evangelical  Al-  ) 
liance  on  Legislative  Action.  j 

Rev.  JAMES  M.  KING,  D.D.,  Chairmav. 
Rev.  S.  IRENAEUS  PRIME,  D.D..,* 

Rev.  J.  M.  BUCKLEY,  D.D., 

Rev.  R.  H.  McKIM,  D.D., 

Rev.  MERRITT  HULBURD, 

Wm.  E.  DODGE,  Esq.,  ex-officio. 


* Since  the  above  document  was  prepared,  Dr.  Prime  has  died.  He  had  read  and  approved 
of  its  publication,  and  therefoie  his  name  is  appended.  The  Evangelical  Alliance,  and  all 
Evangelical  Christendom,  have  lost  in  Dr.  Prime  a trusted,  gifted,  and  most  useful  friend  and 
advocate. 


Organized  January , 1877. 
Incorporated  June,  1885. 


BOARD  OF  MANAGERS. 


Rev.  W.  W.  Atterbury, 

Cephas  Brainerd,  Esq., 

Rev.  Arthur  Brooks, 

Rev.  J.  M.  Buckley,  D.D., 

Rev.  S.  D.  Bukchard,  D.D., 

Rev.  A.  H.  Burlingham,  D.D., 
Rev.  J.  S.  Chadwick,  D.D., 

Rev.  L.  T.  Chamberlain,  D.D., 
Rev.  Henry  B.  Chapin,  Ph  D., 
Edward  Colgate,  Esq., 

Rev.  Geo.  R.  Crooks,  D.D., 

Rev.  C.  F.  Deems,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Wm.  E.  Dodge,  Esq., 

Hon.  E.  L.  Fancher, 

E.  B.  Finch,  Esq., 

Bishop  W.  L.  Harris,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
J.  C.  Hayemeyer,  Esq  , 

Rev.  Merritt  Hulburd, 

Hon.  John  Jay, 

Morris  K.  Jesup,  Esq., 


Rev.  J.  M.  King,  D.D. , 

Rev.  R.  S.  MacArthur,  D D., 

R.  R.  McBurney,  Esq  , 

Rev.  R.  H.  McKim,  D.D., 

John  Paton,  Esq  , 

Rev.  S.  I.  Prime,  D.D., 

Rev.  E.  A.  Reed,  D.D., 

Bishop  A.  A.  Reinke,  D.D., 
Caleb  T.  Rowe,  Esq., 

Rev.  W.  T.  Sabine, 

Rev.  G.  W.  Samson,  D.D , LL.D., 
Rev.  P.  Scuaff,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

S.  B.  Schieffelin,  Esq., 

Rev.  G.  L.  Shearer,  D.D., 

John  D.  Slayback,  Esq., 

Rev.  C.  A.  Stoddard,  D.D., 

Rev.  Roderic  Terry,  D.D., 

Rev.  O.  H.  Tiffany,  D.D., 

Rev.  A C.  Wedekind,  D.D., 

Rev.  Geo.  U.  Wenner. 


OFFICERS 

FOR  THE  YEAR  1885-1886. 


President . 

William  E.  Dodge,  Esq. 


Hon.  John  Jay, 

Hon.  Joseph  Allison, 

Rev.  Galusha  Anderson,  D.D., 
Rev.  Thomas  Armitage,  D.D., 
Charles  J . Baker,  Esq  , 


!- Presidents . 

Rev.  Moses  D.  Hoge,  D.D., 
Gen  O O.  Howard,  U.  S.  A., 
Bishop  JonN  F.  Hurst,  D.D., 
Morris  K.  Jesup,  Esq., 

Rev.  R S.  MacArthur,  D.D., 


18 


Bishop  Thomas  Bowman,  D.D., 
Rev.  Edware  Bright,  D.D., 

Hon.  Joseph  E.  Brown, 

Hon.  Felix  R.  Brunot, 

Rev.  J.  M Buckley,  D.D., 

Rev.  J.  A.  M.  Chapman,  D.D., 

Hon.  William  Claflin, 

Hon.  Robert  H.  Corbett, 

Rev.  Geo.  R.  Crooks,  D.D., 

Hon  J L.  M.  Curry,  LL.  D., 

Rev.  J.  F.  Elder,  D.D., 

Gen.  Clinton  B.  Fisk, 

Bishop  Cyrus  D.  Foss,  D.D., 

Hon.  F.  T.  Frelinghuysen, 

Rev.  Hervey  D.  Ganse,  D.D., 

Hon.  Grant  Goodrich, 

Bishop  J.  C.  Granberry,  D.D., 
Rev.  John  Hall,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

T.  P.  Handy,  Esq., 

Rt.  Rev.  Samuel  S.  Harris,  D.D., 
Bishop  Wm  L.  Harris,  D.D.,LL.D., 
Rev.  R.  D.  Hitchcock,  D.D.,LL.D., 


Rev.  James  McCosh,  D.D.,  LL.D., 
Bishop  H.  N.  McTyeire,  D.D., 

H.  Thane  Miller,  Esq., 

Bishop  W.  R.  Nicholson, 

Rev.  S J.  Nichols,  D.D., 

Rev.  Wm.  Ormiston,  D.D., 

Hon.  Peter  Parker,  M.D., 

John  E.  Parsons,  Esq., 

Bishop  D.  A.  Payne, 

Rev.  E.  N.  Potter,  D.D., 

Bishop  A.  A.  Rkinke,  D D., 

Rev.  H.  B.  Ridgaway,  D.D., 

Rev.  Wm.  T.  Sabine, 

Hon.  Jacob  Sleeper, 

Hon.  George  H.  Stuart, 

Rev.  Roderic  Terry,  D.D., 

Rev.  J.  H.  Vincent,  D.D., 

Rt.  Rev.  F.  McN.  Whittle,  D.D., 
Rev.  J.  Leighton  Wilson,  D.D., 
Hon.  Robt.  C.  Winthrop,  LL.D., 
Hon.  Wm.  Woodward, 

Rev.  Theo.  D.  Woolsey,  D.D.  ,LL.D. 


Honorary  Secretaries . 

Rev.  Howard  Crosby,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Rev.  G.  W.  Samson,  D.D.,LL.D., 
Rev.  C.  F.  Deems,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Rev.  Wm.  M.  Taylor,  D.D., 

Rev.  R.  H.  McKim,  D.D.,  Rev.  O.  H.  Tiffany,  D.D., 

Rev.  E.  A.  Reed,  D.D.,  Rev.  A.  C.  Wedekind,  D.D. 

Hon.  Corresponding  Secretaries. 

Rev.  S.  Iren^eus  Prime,  D.D  , Rev.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Corresponding  and  Recording  Secretaries. 

Rev.  Henry  B.  Chapin,  Ph.D.,  Rev.  George  U.  Wenner. 

Treasurer. 

Caleb  T.  Rowe,  Esq. 

Executive  Committee. 

Rev.  James  M.  King,  D.D.,  Chairman,  R*w.  R.  S.  MacArthur, 

Rev.  Merritt  Hulburd,  R.  R.  McBurney,  Esq., 

Hon.  John  Jay,  John  Paton,  Esq., 

Rev.  C.  A.  Stoddard,  D.D. 

The  President,  Honorary  Secretaries,  and  Treasurer,  ex-officio  members. 


DOCUMENTS 

OF  THE 

United  States  Evangelical  Alliance. 

Doc.  I. 

DEPORT  OX  THE  STATE  OF  BELIGTON  IX  THE  UNITED 
STATES  OF  AMERICA,  niu.de  to  the  Fifth  General  Conference 
of  the  Evangelical  Alliance,  at  Amsterdam,  Holland,  1867.  By 
Henry  B.  Smith,  D.D 

No.  of 
Pages. 

43 

REPORT  UPON  THE  CONFERENCE  AT  AMSTERDAM.  By 
S.  Irenleus  Prime,  D.D.,  1867  

8 

Doc.  II. 

FIRST  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE, for  the  United  States  of  America 

15 

Doc.  III. 

CONFERENCE  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE,  Novem- 
ber 4th  and  5th,  1869.  Report  of  Dr.  Schaef  on  his  Mission  to  Eu- 
rope in  behalf  of  the  General  Conference 

39 

Doc.  IY. 

SECOND  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE for  the  United  States  of  America,  1869 

15 

Doc.  Y. 

THIRD  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE, for  the  United  States  of  America,  1870 

18 

Doc.  VI. 

REPORT  OF  THE  DEPUTATION  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
BRANCH  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE,  appointed  10 
Memoralize  the  Emperor  of  Russia  in  behalf  of  Religious  Liberty,  1 87  i 

32 

Doc.  YII 

FOURTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE for  the  United  States  of  America,  1871 

18 

Doc.  YIIT. 

FIFTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE for  the  United  States  of  America,  1872 

20 

Doc.  IX. 

SIXTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE for  the  United  States  of  America,  1 873 

36 

Doc.  X. 

SEVENTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  AL- 
LTANCK  for  the  United  States  of  America  1H74.  

22 

Doc.  XI. 

EIGHTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE for  the  United  States  of  America,  1875 

22 

Doc.  XI  r. 

NINTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE for  the  United  States  of  America.  1876  

6 

Doc.  XIII. 

TENTH  AND  ELEVENTH  ANNUAL  REPORTS  OF  THE 
EVANGELICAL  ALLIANCE  for  the  United  States  of  America, 
1877  and  1878 

15 

Doc.  XIY. 

REPORT  ON  CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES, 
prepaied  for  the  Seventh  General  Conference  of  the  Evangelical 
Alliance,  held  iu  Basle,  Switzerland,  September,  1879,  by  Philip 
Schaff,  D.D 

67 

1 

Doc.  XY. 

TWELFTH  ANNUAL  REPORT  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL  ALLI- 
ANCE  for  the  United  States  of  America,  1879,  including  Reports 
on  the  Third  Biennial  Meeting  at  St.  Louis,  and  the  Seventh  Gen- 
eral Conference  at  Basle 

32 

Doc.  XVI. 

ACTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  AND  BRITISH  ALLI- 
ANCES on  the  death  of  Hon.  Wm.  E.  Dodge  ; Acceptance  of  the 
Presidency  by  Hon.  John  Jay;  Protest  of  the  United  States  Alli- 
ance against  the  “ Freedom  of  Worship  ” Bill 

24 

Doc.  XVII. 

CELBR  \TION  OF  THE  FOUR  HUNDREDTH  ANNIVERSARY 
OF  THE  BIRTH-DAY  OF  MARTIN  LUTHER— November  13, 
1883.  W i 1 h the  addresses  of  the  Hon.  John  Jay,  Rev.  Wm.  M.  Tay- 
lok,  D.D.,  Rev.  Phillips  Brooks,  D.D 

49 

Doc.  XYIII. 

THE  DISCORD  AND  CONCORD  OF  CHRISTENDOM.  Report 
on  the  Eighth  General  Conference,  held  at  Copenhagen,  September, 
1834,  and  on  the  Scandinavian  meeting  held  in  New  York,  Novem- 
ber 17th,  1884.  With  addresses 

52 

Doc.  XIX. 

ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  YORK, 
concerning  the  so-called  ‘-Freedom  of  Worship”  Bill,  before  the 
Legislature  of  1885 

18 

